Recruiting & high-value hiring
Hiring starts with ambiguous expectations. It gets better when the organization explicitly learns what a successful hire looks like — and keeps that knowledge.
Sourcing channels, interview questions and scorecards should improve with each search. Later performance feedback belongs in the same Library as the original spec.
Example runs
LinkedIn sourcing · community · referrals · global remote · specialist recruiting worker
What “better” means
Skill match, problem-solving, experience relevance, communication, culture contribution, compensation fit, long-term potential
What the Library keeps
Refined job specs, channel performance, interview questions, candidate rubrics, hiring decisions, later performance notes
The job spec is a living document
Placeholder. How reviews of real hires should change the next search.
Channels as experiments
Placeholder. Scoring sourcing strategies, not just candidates.
Fairness and the rubric
Placeholder. Making “better” explicit so it can be inspected.
You start with “we need a strong generalist,” let Chloe force the missing criteria into the spec, try two sourcing strategies as runs, and keep the questions that actually predicted a good conversation.
People are not outputs. Use workers to structure search and scoring, not to make the hire. Keep bias, legal and local labor rules in a human review step.
Start with one important task.
Try a better approach, review what changed, keep what worked.